DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 with relation to PCT Application No. KR2021/016126, filed 11/08/2021.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 4/1/2026 have been considered.
Claims 1-7 have been amended.
Claims 8-12 have previously been withdrawn.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Claims 1-7 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the interpretation of the claims under 35 USC 112(f) have been considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks on pages 8-9 regarding the previously filed 112(f) interpretation of claims 1, 5 and 6, as well as the amendments to the claims, have been considered and are persuasive. The claims have been amended to recite that the content transaction platform comprises “one or more processors; and… instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the content transaction platform to…”, indicating sufficient structure for performing the recited operations. While terms previously interpreted under 112(f) remain in the amended claims (“search tool,” “editing tool,” “purchase tool,” and “uploading tool”), the claims now convey sufficient structure as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the claims are no longer interpreted under 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) have been considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-11 that the previously filed rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) are rendered moot. This argument has been considered and is persuasive. The claims, as amended, are no longer interpreted under 112(f), as discussed above, and accordingly the previously filed rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) are rendered moot, and have similarly been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-15 that amended claim 1 recites a specific, processor-implemented content transaction platform that performs concrete computer-executed operations that cannot be performed mentally or as a method of organizing human activity, and that the claims satisfy both Step 2A and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
It is noted that, in the Non-Final Rejection (filed 12/5/2025, see pages 11-15), the claims were identified as reciting limitations falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, in that they recite marketing and customizing products, and additionally that the limitations of claim 1 amounted to merely implementing the abstract idea in a generic computing environment, without effectuating an improvement or change to a computer or other technology. The claims were not rejected for reciting limitations falling within the “Mental Processes” grouping, and accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed towards the claims reciting limitations “that cannot be performed mentally” are rendered moot. Furthermore, despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas for those reasons set forth previously.
While Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a particular technological architecture that generates, manages, routes, and transforms digital content and associated metadata across multiple interfaces, and that the claims solve computer-centric problems arising in the management of personalized digital content transactions, including how to automatically generate pattern information, how to integrate consumer-side and provider-side interfaces, and how to route edited content and purchase information across a server-based architecture, Examiner notes the Specification (and claims) do not provide a technical explanation as to how these elements improve upon the conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Regarding the claimed additional elements, Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient technical detail with respect to an improvement to the content transaction platform generating, managing, routing and transforming digital content and associated metadata, the specification does not provide sufficient technical detail with respect to an improvement to integrating a consumer interface, and the specification does not provide sufficient technical detail with respect to an improvement to integrating a provider interface. Examiner further notes that neither the claims nor the specification describe the transformation of data, or the transformation of digital content, such that a technical improvement would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The instant specification is specific only in the additional elements use in facilitating the abstract idea of marketing and customizing products. For example, the specification discloses the claimed invention addressing issues such as decreases in user satisfaction, a decrease in user interaction with subsequent auctions, and/or a cost of returning the object when a user receives an inauthentic item (see at least [0001]). Accordingly, the claims merely represent the use of generic computing technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process using technology set forth at a high level of generality. Further, the specification does not provide sufficient disclosure or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field. This is unlike the claims in Diehr, DDR, and McRO, where the claims were determined as being directed to improvements in existing technology, rather than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues on page 14 that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because “[the claimed] operations reflect a tailored architecture that enables automated content personalization, editing, uploading, and transaction management across multiple interfaces”. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. As discussed above, the claimed additional elements of claim 1 are not described with sufficient technical detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a technical improvement to a computer or other technology. Further, the claims amount to improvement in the abstract idea, rather than effectuating an improvement to technology (see at least Specification [0001]). This is unlike the claims in Finjan, Amdocs, and BASCOM, where the additional elements of the claims were recognized as providing specific implementations of a solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the rejection has been maintained.
The 101 rejections of dependent claims 2-7 have been maintained for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 15-17 that claim 1, as amended, overcome the currently cited prior art because “Lipsitz… fails to disclose or suggest any provider-side interface, any uploading operation performed in response to a provider request, or any search based on provider-defined conditions. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. It is noted that Lipsitz has been further relied upon as teaching the amended limitations, in view of the amendments altering the scope of independent claim 1.
For example, Lipsitz has been further relied upon to teach one or more processors, and memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and that includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the content transaction platform to… at (Lipsitz, [0019][0088][Fig. 1]), discussing and depicting the system of the invention including a computer processor and software adapted to run on the processor.
Lipsitz has been further relied upon to teach store and manage contents uploaded by a plurality of content providers in a content source, provide a provider interface page through the Internet, the provider interface page forming an interface for the content provider to upload the content and collect information, and provide an uploading tool that uploads the content to the content source in response to an upload request of the content provider at (Lipsitz, [0118-0119][0122][Figs. 15-18]), disclosing that Store Owners can create sub-Customizers for customers that visit respective Sub-stores, including selecting Base garments, designs, and Models. Store Owners can then post and share the sub-Customizer for users who wish to view the custom Sub-Store, causing the Sub-Customizer to be saved in the database and activated on the host site.
Lipsitz has been further relied upon to teach search the plurality of contents of the content source to provide content information corresponding to request information including a condition pre-registered by the content provider, at (Lipsitz, [0110][0117][0123][0156]), disclosing that the Store Owner can specify options such as database filters that appear in the Store Owner’s Sub-Customizer/Sub-Store, where users can browse the sub-customizer and components that the Store Owner selected for the Sub-Store. Users can further search for components using searchable meta-tags. Lipsitz teaching that the Store Owner can select filters/meta-tags to appear in the Store Owner’s Sub-Customizer and Sub-Store reasonably reads on a condition pre-registered by the content provider, as the filters/meta-tags are selected by the Store Owner, prior to the filters/meta-tags being subsequently usable by users that visit the Sub-Store. Therefore, the Non-Final rejection did not err in its citation of Lipsitz.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-7 are directed towards a machine. Therefore, claims 1-7 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-7).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
store and manage contents provided by a plurality of content providers in a content source;
provide for a consumer to search, purchase, and edit the contents;
provide a search tool, select one or a plurality of personalized contents among the contents of the content source using consumer pattern information in association with the consumer’s search using the search tool, and provide the selected personalized content to the consumer;
provide an editing tool, generated an edited content through the consumer’s editing of the personalized content using the editing tool, and provide the edited content to the consumer;
provide a purchase tool, and provide purchase decision information including payment information in association with the consumer’s purchase of the personalized content or the edited content using the purchase tool;
generate the consumer pattern information by collecting and analyzing the consumer’s behaviors for the search through the consumer and the consumer’s interest levels in the contents provided through the search tool, and manage purchase information corresponding to the purchase decision information;
provide for the content provider to collect information;
provide the content to the content source in response to a request of the content provider; and
search the plurality of contents of the content source to provide content information corresponding request information including a condition pre-registered by the content provider.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The MPEP defines the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because storing and managing contents provided by a plurality of content providers in a content source, providing for a consumer to search, purchase and edit the contents, provide a search tool, select one or a plurality of personalized contents among the contents of the content source using consumer pattern information in association with the consumer’s search using the search tool, and provide the selected personalized content to the consumer, provide an editing tool and provide the edited content to the consumer, provide a purchase tool and provide purchase decision information including payment information using the purchase tool, generating the consumer pattern information by collection and analyzing the consumer’s behaviors for the search through the consumer and the consumer’s interest levels, provide for the content provider to collect information, provide the content in response to a request of the content provider, and search the plurality of contents to provide content information including a condition pre-registered by the content provider is a commercial or legal interaction because it is an advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including A content transaction platform, comprising: one or more processors; and memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and that includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the content transaction platform; contents uploaded; provide a consumer interface page through the Internet, the consumer interface page forming an interface; provide a provider interface page through the Internet, the provider interface page forming an interface for the content provider to upload the content; and an uploading tool that uploads in response to an upload request.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 specifying that the abstract idea of marketing and customizing products is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of A content transaction platform, comprising: one or more processors; and memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and that includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the content transaction platform; contents uploaded; provide a consumer interface page through the Internet, the consumer interface page forming an interface; provide a provider interface page through the Internet, the provider interface page forming an interface for the content provider to upload the content; and an uploading tool that uploads in response to an upload request amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-7, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 2, 4 and 7, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claim 1, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 2, 4 and 7 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 3 and 5-6, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claim 1. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
performing charging processing on the purchase decision information; and
manage uploading information.
The additional elements of performing charging processing and manage uploading information are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-7 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Lipsitz (US 2012/0109777 A1), in view of previously cited Papale (US 2022/0122144 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lipsitz discloses A content transaction platform, comprising ([0088][0091][0095]):
one or more processors ([0019][0088][Fig. 1]); and
memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and that includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the content transaction platform to ([0019][0088][Fig. 1]):
store and manage contents uploaded by a plurality of content providers in a content source ([0118-0119] the store creation process includes the a Store Owner creating a Sub-Customizer for customers to design their own products… the Store Owner is prompted to select Base garments and available Color options for each garment; [0122] the Store Owner can click “post it”, “embed it”, “get link” “share it”… the Sub-Customizer is saved in the database which then activates the Sub-Customizer on the host site; see [Figs. 15-18]);
provide a consumer interface page through the Internet, the consumer interface page forming an interface for a consumer to search, purchase, and edit the contents ([0088] The managing Company (2) and all Users (3) of the system interact with the database via an Internet connection (4) and a central Company Website (5)… this online interface can be accessed by any electronic device that connects to and displays from the Internet; [0091] In the Store, Users may view, share, save, customize, buy (10) and sell (11) existing finished Products… the database generates filters for Users to easily navigate and search the finished Products in the Store);
provide a search tool, select one or a plurality of personalized contents among the contents of the content source using consumer pattern information in association with the consumer's search using the search tool, and provide the selected personalized content to the consumer interface page ([0091] Users can view all finished products, including those created by Operators… the database generates filters for Users to easily navigate and search the finished Products in the Store; [0108] a front end Store has a grid of products and two systems for filtering products; [0110] When Users select items from either filter the Product results narrow down to match the criteria selected; [0111] the User can select from several options in the Store page… the User can click on a Product Image (62) to see the Product Detail Page; [Fig. 9] Product Detail Page);
provide an editing tool, generate an edited content through the consumer's editing of the personalized content using the editing tool, and provide the edited content to the consumer interface page ([0111] By selecting Customize it (77), the database system redirects the User to the Customizer which loads all the Components of the Product. The User then can change any element; [0090] the database generates an overarching front end Customizer(8) where Users can select different features to personalize and customize pre-produced Bases into finished Products; [0092] Users may choose to customize a finished Product by altering the Components that make up the finished Product in the Customizer);
provide a purchase tool, and provide purchase decision information including payment information in association with the consumer’s purchase of the personalized content or the edited content using the purchase tool ([0111] the User can select Buy it (10) to go through a Checkout (12) to complete his/her purchase, thereby turning the User into a customer; [0130] Orders automatically flow into the Order Management system from the database when Customers purchase Products. Customers are then automatically sent an email with confirmation of a successful transaction and the expected date of arrival for their Orders; [0131] The Operator can then receive a Purchase Order);
collecting and analyzing the consumer’s behaviors for the search through the consumer interface page ([0091] Users can view all finished products, including those created by Operators… the database generates filters for Users to easily navigate and search the finished Products in the Store; [0108] a front end Store has a grid of products and two systems for filtering products; [0110] When Users select items from either filter the Product results narrow down to match the criteria selected; [0111] the User can select from several options in the Store page… the User can click on a Product Image (62) to see the Product Detail Page; [Fig. 9] Product Detail Page), and
manage purchase information corresponding to the purchase decision information ([0111] the User can select Buy it (10) to add the Product to a shopping cart and continue shopping or go through a Checkout (12) to complete his/her purchase, thereby turning a User into a Customer; [0124] The Order (116) is a visual way to see the progression of a Customer's purchase of Products (Order) from the time an Order is placed on the website to the time the Order is delivered to the Customer; [0130] Orders automatically flow into the Order Management system from the database when Customers purchase Products; [0131] Operators can receive Purchase Orders listing pertinent information);
provide a provider interface page through the Internet, the provider interface page forming an interface for the content provider to upload the content and collect information ([0118-0119] the store creation process includes the a Store Owner creating a Sub-Customizer for customers to design their own products… the Store Owner is prompted to select Base garments and available Color options for each garment; [0120-0121] a Store Owner can select Fabric options to offer to Customers when they design their custom products… and choose the Models that will appear in his/her Sub-Store; [0122] the Store Owner can click “post it”, “embed it”, “get link” “share it”… the Sub-Customizer is saved in the database which then activates the Sub-Customizer on the host site; see [Figs. 15-18]);
provide an uploading tool that uploads the content to the content source in response to an upload request of the content provider ([0118-0119] the store creation process includes the Store Owner creating a Sub-Customizer for customers to design their own products; [0122] the Store Owner can click “post it”, “embed it”, “get link” “share it”… the Sub-Customizer is saved in the database which then activates the Sub-Customizer on the host site; see [Figs. 15-18]); and
search the plurality of contents of the content source to provide content information corresponding to request information including a condition pre-registered by the content provider ([0117] the meta tags chose for the Product will allow its automatic listing in search and directory features of any Store; [0123] allowing a Store Owner to specify which options (database filters) he/she would like to have appear in his/her Sub-Customizer. Once a Store Owner has created his/her Sub-Customizer, other Users may browse the Sub-Customizer and the Components that the Store Owner selected; [0156] Unique characteristics of Components can be saved in the system as searchable meta-tags for each Component or Product… see [0110] the tags act as a marketing tool to highlight specific Products when browsing and filtering through a store… Users select items from the filter Product results to match the criteria selected);
Lipsitz discloses selecting personalized contents among the contents of the content source using consumer pattern information (see at least Lipsitz [0091][0108][0110-0111][Fig. 9]). However, Lipsitz does not explicitly disclose generate the consumer pattern information by collecting and analyzing the consumer’s interest levels in the contents provided through the search tool.
Papale, on the other hand, discloses generate the consumer pattern information by collecting and analyzing the consumer’s interest levels in the contents provided through the search tool ([0080] automatically configuring custom product options for a customized product based on user interactions with a computer-based product customization marketplace; [0081] The automatically recorded paths and choices made by the user are used to generate, so called, triggers; [0082] additional triggers are generated based on collected information about the user including the user’s preferences and search history… see [0080] the user interface may be configured to provide multi-facet search capabilities and provide templates for product customization options).
The steps of Papale are applicable to the system of Lipsitz, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to marketplace product customization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the marketplace product customization system as taught by Lipsitz, to include generate the consumer pattern information by collecting and analyzing the consumer’s interest levels in the contents provided through the search tool, as taught by Papale. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Lipsitz in order to generate more accurate options for customizing products based on tracked user actions (Papale, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lipsitz and Papale teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lipsitz further discloses wherein the instructions that cause the content transaction platform to use the consumer pattern information further cause the content transaction platform to analyze the behaviors of the consumer for the search ([0091] Users can view all finished products, including those created by Operators… the database generates filters for Users to easily navigate and search the finished Products in the Store; [0108] a front end Store has a grid of products and two systems for filtering products; [0110] When Users select items from either filter the Product results narrow down to match the criteria selected). However, Lipsitz does not explicitly teach generate the consumer pattern information, and analyzing the interest levels of the consumer by collecting previously collected interest field of the consumer, keywords used by the consumer for the search, and categories and information of the contents read by the consumer.
Papale, on the other hand, teaches generate the consumer pattern information ([0080] automatically configuring custom product options for a customized product based on user interactions with a computer-based product customization marketplace; [0081] The automatically recorded paths and choices made by the user are used to generate, so called, triggers; [0082] additional triggers are generated based on collected information about the user including the user’s preferences and search history), and
analyzing the interest levels of the consumer by collecting previously collected interest field of the consumer, keywords used by the consumer for the search, and categories and information of the contents read by the consumer ([0089] the body of knowledge about the user and the products that the user is interested in is used to automatically generate, so called, triggers; [0091] the trigger may be tied to previous user actions, including the user searching for and visiting a product category for printed invitations; [0092] triggers include indicators that a product category was visited, and that particular search terms were used… see [0148] discussing a Search Term trigger; [0155-0156] user selections are noted, and records are created to indicate the user’s interest in the selection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the marketplace product customization system as taught by Lipsitz, to include generate the consumer pattern information, and analyzing the interest levels of the consumer by collecting previously collected interest field of the consumer, keywords used by the consumer for the search, and categories and information of the contents read by the consumer, as taught by Papale, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Lipsitz and Papale teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lipsitz further discloses wherein the instructions that cause the content transaction platform to use the consumer pattern information further cause the content transaction platform to: manage basic information including personal information of the consumer and financial information of the consumer for the purchase, and generate information further using the basic information ([0137] customer and order data uploaded to the Order Management system includes customer name, shipping address, invoice number, Product ID number), and
the financial information includes the payment information for the purchase and the purchase information corresponding to a result of performing charging processing on the purchase decision information ([0093] When Users purchase Products (from either a Store or Customizer) they are redirected to a shopping cart and "Checkout" system (12) which transfers the Order information through the database to the Order Management system (13); [0097] the Company must input into the database the Price to charge the Customer for the Base, which increases as the User customizes the Base; [0137] customer and order data uploaded to the Order Management system includes customer name, invoice number, Product ID number; see [Fig. 36] depicting an invoice, including billing details).
Lipsitz discloses wherein the basic information includes personal information of the consumer ([0137]). However, Lipsitz does not explicitly teach generate the consumer pattern information; managing the consumer pattern information; and generating the consumer pattern information using personal information of the consumer.
Papale, on the other hand, teaches generate the consumer pattern information ([0080] automatically configuring custom product options for a customized product based on user interactions with a computer-based product customization marketplace; [0081] The automatically recorded paths and choices made by the user are used to generate, so called, triggers; [0082] additional triggers are generated based on collected information about the user including the user’s preferences and search history), and
managing the consumer pattern information ([0089] the body of knowledge about the user and the products that the user is interested in is used to automatically generate, so called, triggers; [0091] the trigger may be tied to previous user actions, including the user searching for and visiting a product category for printed invitations; [0092] this plurality of triggers may be transformed into specific product options for a custom product using a series of logical operations; [0099] the triggers may be used to select specific attributes and the corresponding attribute values for a customized product that then may be used to digitally generate a customized product which may be displayed in the user interface for the user to view); and
generating the consumer pattern information using personal information of the consumer ([0089] the body of knowledge about the user and the products that the user is interested in is used to automatically generate, so called, triggers; [0091] the trigger may be tied to previous user actions, including the user searching for and visiting a product category for printed invitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the marketplace product customization system as taught by Lipsitz, to include generate the consumer pattern information; managing the consumer pattern information; and generating the consumer pattern information using personal information of the consumer, as taught by Papale, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Lipsitz and Papale teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lipsitz further discloses wherein the instructions that cause the content transaction platform to upload the edited content generated by the editing tool to the content source through the consumer's selection ([0090] The database generates an overarching front end Customizer (8) where Users can select different features to personalize and customize pre-produced Bases and add them as finished Products to a site wide Store (9). From the Customizer, Users can save their designs; [0107] when the User is satisfied with his/her customer design, he/she may proceed to save the designed product within the database), and
wherein the instructions that cause the content transaction platform to use the consumer pattern information further cause the content transaction platform to: store selection information of the selected personalized content and editing information of the edited content resulting from editing ([0090] from the Customizer, Users can save their designs; [0107] when the User is satisfied with his/her customer design, he/she may proceed to save the designed product within the database… see [0090] Users can save their designs to their individual login-protected accounts to revisit later);
provide the selection information and the editing information to the purchase tool so that the selection information and the editing information are included in the payment information for the purchase ([0090] from the Customizer, Users can purchase or sell their designs; [0093] When Users purchase Products (from either a Store or Customizer) they are redirected to a shopping cart and "Checkout" system (12) which transfers the Order information through the database to the Order Management system (13) and Accounting system (14); [0111] The User can select from several options in the Store page, including a "Buy it" button); and
receive sale information as the edited content is purchased by another consumer and give a notification through the consumer interface page ([0111] The User can select from several options in the Store page, including a Sell It (11) option, which allows the User to become a Store Owner prompting him/her to login or register for his/her own account and own Sub-Store and Sub-Customizer. Once logged in, the Product can be named and described by the Store Owner and is saved to his/her Sub-Store and available for purchase by other Users; [0130] Orders automatically flow into the Order Management system from the database when Customers purchase Products. Customers are then automatically sent an email with confirmation of a successful transaction and the expected date of arrival for their Orders; [0164] A Store Owner can view the sales they have generated and be rewarded for them). However, Lipsitz does not explicitly disclose generate the consumer pattern information.
Papale, on the other hand, teaches generate the consumer pattern information ([0080] automatically configuring custom product options for a customized product based on user interactions with a computer-based product customization marketplace; [0081] The automatically recorded paths and choices made by the user are used to generate, so called, triggers; [0082] additional triggers are generated based on collected information about the user including the user’s preferences and search history).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the marketplace product customization system as taught by Lipsitz, to include generate the consumer pattern information, as taught by Papale, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Lipsitz and Papale teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lipsitz further discloses wherein the instructions cause the content transaction platform to: manage and provide the request information of the content provider to matching information provision functionality, and manage uploading information of the content (([0117] the meta tags chose for the Product will allow its automatic listing in search and directory features of any Store; [0123] allowing a Store Owner to specify which options (database filters) he/she would like to have appear in his/her Sub-Customizer. Once a Store Owner has created his/her Sub-Customizer, other Users may browse the Sub-Customizer and the Components that the Store Owner selected… see [0110] the tags act as a marketing tool to highlight specific Products when browsing and filtering through a store… Users select items from the filter Product results to match the criteria selected) and
sale information corresponding to the purchase information of the consumer ([0124] The Order (116) is a visual way to see the progression of a Customer's purchase of Products (Order) from the time an Order is placed on the website to the time the Order is delivered to the Customer, including the first “Order Approval” point, when a Customer’s Order transaction has been received and successfully approved by the computer system and database).
Regarding Claim 6, Lipsitz and Papale teach the limitations of claim 5.
Lipsitz further discloses wherein the instructions cause the content transaction platform to: perform charging processing in association with the purchase decision information ([0093] When Users purchase Products (from either a Store or Customizer) they are redirected to a shopping cart and "Checkout" system (12) which transfers the Order information through the database to the Order Management system (13) and Accounting system (14); [0111] the User can select Buy it (10) to add the Product to a shopping cart and continue shopping or go through a Checkout (12) to complete his/her purchase, thereby turning a User into a Customer; [0124] the Order Tracker displays an “Order Approval” status, when a Customer's Order transaction has been received and successfully approved by the computer system and associated software and database);
generate the purchase information and the sale information corresponding to the charging processing ([0093] When Users purchase Products (from either a Store or Customizer) they are redirected to a shopping cart and "Checkout" system (12) which transfers the Order information through the database to the Order Management system (13); [0137] Customer and Order data input into the Order Management system includes customer name and invoice number);
provide the purchase information to consumer information management functionality ([0127] There are small variations with the display of the Order Tracker depending on who sees it… a customer can see the Order Tracker on an email Invoice; see [Fig. 36] depicting an invoice)); and
provide the sale information to provider information management functionality ([0127] There are small variations with the display of the Order Tracker depending on who sees it. For a Store Owner, the Order Tracker displays how many Orders are in each phase of the process (123) for each Product that was purchased from his/her Store; [0129] There are a series of well-defined links that allow the Operator to see how many Orders are in each phase of Production. There is also a place to look up Orders by invoice number).
Regarding Claim 7, Lipsitz and Papale teach the limitations of claim 1.
Lipsitz further discloses wherein the instructions cause the content transaction platform to: manage request information ([0123] allowing a Store Owner to specify which options (database filters) he/she would like to have appear in his/her Sub-Customizer. Once a Store Owner has created his/her Sub-Customizer, other Users may browse the Sub-Customizer and the Components that the Store Owner selected),
uploading information ([0118-0119] the store creation process includes the Store Owner creating a Sub-Customizer for customers to design their own products; [0122] the Store Owner can click “post it”, “embed it”, “get link” “share it”… the Sub-Customizer is saved in the database which then activates the Sub-Customizer on the host site; see [Figs. 15-18]),
sale information ([0093] When Users purchase Products (from either a Store or Customizer) they are redirected to a shopping cart and "Checkout" system (12) which transfers the Order information through the database to the Order Management system (13)),
basic information including personal information of the content provider ([0111] The option to Sell it (11) allows the User to become a Store Owner prompting him/her to login or register for his/her own account and own Sub-Store and Sub-Customizer; [0117] Other controls in the Store Owner Controls include the ability to view all sales (91) through a personal Sub-Store, promote one's Sub-store with links and connections to social media sites (92)), and
financial information of the content provider ([0117] The Store Owner also has Sub-Store settings to configure the payment structure for Sub-Stores that sell on his/her behalf (95)), and
include, within the financial information, the payment information to be provided for charging processing ([0117] The Store Owner also has Sub-Store settings to configure the payment structure for Sub-Stores that sell on his/her behalf (95)) (Note: Configuring a payment structure for a store that sells products is payment information to be provided for charging processing).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights